State Secretary Kerry calls Snowden a "coward," asks him to "face the music" in US.

In his first interview with a major US network news organization since leaking a treasure trove of documents related to the US national security apparatus, former US intelligence contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden told NBC “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams that he has been misrepresented by the mainstream media outlets and aimed to set the record straight.

In early 2013, Snowden disclosed thousands of top-secret US government documents to filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald. The documents revealed that the US government has established phone and Internet dragnets to sweep up data en masse, sparking a global debate about government surveillance ever since.

Further Reading

During the filming of the hour-long special "Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden" in the Kepinski Hotel in Moscow last week, which aired on Wednesday night at 10pm ET, the two spoke at length about a wide range of topics that included a discussion of Snowden’s technical training and work as an undercover “spy,” his reasons for continuing to reside in Russia under a temporary asylum agreement, and what he describes as the US government's exploitation of the national trauma in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

“We were worried about a number of things... [like] competitive concerns. And we didn’t know how much the Russians knew about the reasons for our travel,” Williams explains of the back-story of the interview. What's more, Williams describes how he nearly missed a connecting flight in London, how his luggage did not arrive until moments before Snowden appeared at the hotel room, and how NBC attempted to conceal their identities and motivations for visiting the country from Russian authorities.

Williams also told the Times that the "blindingly smart" and "enigmatic" Snowden received no remuneration for the interview other than "half a chicken sandwich from the room service cart."

"Man up" and "face the music"

During the interview, Snowden discussed his motivations for releasing the documents to journalists, explaining, "The intelligence capabilities themselves are unregulated, uncontrolled, and dangerous. People at NSA can actually watch internet communications and see our thoughts form as we type. What's more shocking is the dirtiness of the targeting. It's the lack of respect for the public and for the intrusiveness of surveillance."

Snowden also recalled his reaction to the 9/11 attacks and his belief in the importance of combatting terrorism. "I've never told anybody this, but I was on Fort Meade on September 11. I was right outside the NSA, so I remember the tension of that day... I take the threat of terrorism seriously. I think it's disingenuous for the government to exploit the national trauma that we've all suffered to justify programs that have never been shown to keep us safe but cause us to give up liberties our Constitution does not let us give up."

The whistleblower also took the opportunity to comment on how the mainstream media’s depiction of him as a low-level “systems administrator” and President Barack Obama’s own description of him as a "hacker” are “somewhat misleading.”

Instead, the 30-year-old Snowden characterized himself as a “technical expert” who has served as a “spy” for the US Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, living and working undercover, overseas, “pretending to work in a job that I'm not — and even being assigned a name that was not mine."

What I do is I put systems to work for the United States. And I’ve done that at all levels, from — from the bottom on the ground all the way to the top. Now, the government might deny these things; they might frame it in certain ways and say, 'Oh, well, you know, he's a low-level analyst.’ But what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to use one position that I’ve had in a career here or there to distract from the totality of my experience.

Snowden also addressed critics of what he characterized as his non-decision to continue to live in Russia, under a temporary asylum agreement. “The reality is I never intended to end up in Russia,” he explained. “I had a flight booked to Cuba onwards to Latin America and I was stopped because the United States government decided to revoke my passport and trap me in Moscow Airport. So when people ask why are you in Russia, I say 'please ask the State Department.'"

Responding to a question regarding his relationship with the Russian government, Snowden told Williams, "I have no relationship with the Russian government. I have taken no money from the Russian government... The best way to avoid doing that is by destroying the information I had before coming to Russia. I took no documents to Russia, so I could give them nothing."

Responding to Snowden’s comments on his reasons for staying in Russia (which was aired as an excerpt on NBC TODAY on Wednesday morning), Secretary of State John Kerry fired back: "For a supposedly smart guy, that's a pretty dumb answer, frankly... Edward Snowden is a coward,” Kerry told Chuck Todd on MSNBC. “He is a traitor. And he has betrayed his country… and [should] face the music.” Kerry continued to challenge Snowden to "man up and come back to the United States."

What's more, Kerry made the case that Snowden’s leaks of classified documents revealing the extent of NSA spying programs has given valuable information to terrorists and has thrown a wrench in US counter-terrorism efforts. “If this man is a patriot, he should stay in the United States and make his case,” Kerry said. “Patriots don't go to Russia, they don't seek asylum in Cuba, they don't seek asylum in Venezuela, they fight their cause here.”

230 Reader Comments

I'll support Snowden returning to the US for trial when Obama and Bush are willing to report to the Hague for their own trials. Snowden has done more for the American people than either of those presidents, both of whom had the ability to enforce the Fourth Amendment, and chose to expand the surveillance state instead.

Obama to the Hague... I'm not sure what is more sad. The idiot that posts junk like this or all the other ones that voted this up. Get educated about the world we live in and stop sitting at your local Starbucks sipping your $5 lattes and calling for Obama to be prosecuted for crimes.

What part of invading countries we're not at war with preemptively, in violation of the UN charter isn't a war crime? Also, I've never been to a Starbucks.

Tell me is ignorance bliss?

For the rest of you (since someone so lost isn't going to listen to this) here's why this is BS:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

This and some other items means that the UN's classic powerlessness is a rather de jure state of affairs as well as a de facto one. Particularly so here since such matters come under the Security Council the USA can legally veto anything it doesn't care for. So what violation?

2) Even if a President did not successfully assert some from of immunity as the head of state while still in office he could always pardon himself of the offense. So you would need to get Congress to impeach first.

What's that something-something international law? Bull hockey read the Constituition it clearly asserts itself as the Supreme Law of the Land. Any treaty in conflict with the constitutional provisions cannot be held to anymore then any unconstitutional law passed by Congress or the States.

The USA is subject to international law only as it agrees to it via the Constitutionally defined process. It is indeed law by the Constituition, but subject to Constitutional guidelines.

I would hope Mr Snowden does surrender and come back to the U.S. however I was hoping that Mr Snowden would release information about what evidence the U.S. government has been hiding about UFO's and what they know about them.

I would hope Mr Snowden does surrender and come back to the U.S. however I was hoping that Mr Snowden would release information about what evidence the U.S. government has been hiding about UFO's and what they know about them.

All of the leaks have been proven to be unequivocally true despite the government desperately wanting to find at least one that is false. Yeah, I think it is pretty safe to assume that a Snowden leak is truth, and anything the government says in contradiction is a lie. Hrm, do I trust someone proven to always be truthful to the public, or proven liars...

I genuinely like Snowden and believe in what he's doing. I've even called him a hero. But I don't think he's infallible. I don't doubt anything he has leaked to the press, but some of his claims in the interview lean towards hyperbole.

Well, I don't need to be a US citizen to know when something stinks. Enter my country, New Zealand. Part of the 5 eyes network, which nobody in NZ was asked to be a part of except for all the spooks on behalf of the government of the day: Helen Clark (current 3IC at the UN) and her administration certainly had a habit of doing allsorts of rubbish in our name that results in us as a country being guilty by association. The installation near a township called Blenheim was attacked. (Search 'waihopai spy base')The perpetrators were acquitted

Got to wonder why, eh?

Word for Kerry: Nobody here is interested in being targeted by foreign terrorists groups because of our association with this program, but that's what's likely. May I so humbly suggest that, like the traitors in my own government (whom, I might add, I have no interest in stopping), that you dig your own hole?

Word for Kerry: Nobody here is interested in being targeted by foreign terrorists groups because of our association with this program, but that's what's likely. May I so humbly suggest that, like the traitors in my own government (whom, I might add, I have no interest in stopping), that you dig your own hole?

I don't begrudge anyone wanting to exercise self determination in their government but being afraid of foreign terrorists seems like a weird reason to oppose a program like this. Be afraid of it because it may one day make you out to be a threat and a terrorist as much as anyone else.

The article says "In early 2013, Snowden disclosed thousands of top-secret US government documents to filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald", and as far as that goes, it is true. But why leave out that Snowden first disclosed those docs to Bart Gelman and the WaPo first?

All of the leaks have been proven to be unequivocally true despite the government desperately wanting to find at least one that is false. Yeah, I think it is pretty safe to assume that a Snowden leak is truth, and anything the government says in contradiction is a lie. Hrm, do I trust someone proven to always be truthful to the public, or proven liars...

I genuinely like Snowden and believe in what he's doing. I've even called him a hero. But I don't think he's infallible. I don't doubt anything he has leaked to the press, but some of his claims in the interview lean towards hyperbole.

Ed is a great guy, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, regardless of who you are.

From the links provided the phone thing is pretty hyperbolic because yeah that's just not technically possible whatever the NSA might like. The "no relationship" one is still pretty fairball for being in plain language in an interview not legalistic jargon. Much of that article is busy twisting words. The only real oddity was Snowden phoning in on Putin's TV show awhile ago, but that being more then say when Brian Williams interviews the President... open to interpretation. Its clear Snowden meant he's not a Russian operative or working for them and this is all some kind of evil communist political op.

More generally though yeah... he's done a remarkable thing but does have some ego going on so I've no doubt there's some stuff that doesn't quite hold up or he's shading in his favor.

Word for Kerry: Nobody here is interested in being targeted by foreign terrorists groups because of our association with this program, but that's what's likely. May I so humbly suggest that, like the traitors in my own government (whom, I might add, I have no interest in stopping), that you dig your own hole?

I don't begrudge anyone wanting to exercise self determination in their government but being afraid of foreign terrorists seems like a weird reason to oppose a program like this. Be afraid of it because it may one day make you out to be a threat and a terrorist as much as anyone else.

Thought you'd have figured out that implication by that already, hence the likelihood of becoming a target the first place? Nevermind... All I know is if the public were asked by referendum if they wanted it, the answer would be a resounding 'no'

We can only hope that the eventual "Snowden Amendment" that dismantles the NSA's panopticon apparatus and enshrines prosecution-free whistleblowing and truth-telling in the Constitution is actually read by those who swear to support and defend it.

You realize Snowden would disagree with you on this point?

(Snipped for space)

And he's repeatedly pointed out how he believes the NSA is necessary and does good work, it's just the mass collection that is wrong.

Respectfully, I don't think he would disagree with me here.

Please note the term I used: "the NSA's panopticon apparatus." A "panopticon" is a structure envisioned by Jeremy Bentham where a central tower can see all behavior in an exterior building ("pan - opticon" meaning basically "all - observe"). A panopticon allows a single watchman (the NSA, for instance) to guard all prisoners/inmates/etc. (the citizens of the US, for instance) by creating the sense in the inmates that they are being watched at all times whether they are or not. This requires compliant behavior from the inmates, because they cannot tell if or when they might be caught in non-compliance. Obviously the inmates cannot see the watchman's actions.

I don't disagree with your basic argument above that a properly restrained NSA could have a role to play. If the police have a fair, legal warrant to enter my home and search it for X, then that's okay by the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, if they have a fair, legal warrant to search my online files/presence/data/whatever, then that would probably also be okay by the Fourth Amendment. What is not okay is for the cops to look into my house whenever they please, and it's not okay for the NSA to have warrantless, constant, and invisible-to-me-and-my-lawyer access to everything I do online. This creates a "panopticon" effect, and it is precisely "the mass collection that is wrong." I think Mr. Snowden would very much agree that it is the "panopticon" effect that is the problem here.

Credit where credit is due: I'm totally stealing/borrowing the panopticon metaphor from Greenwald's No Place To Hide, which uses the metaphor to great effect. While I'd heard of the structure before, this particular usage is not of my own thinking. I'm also paraphrasing Wikipedia's "Panopticon" entry in spots here.

Wikipedia says his birthday is June 21st, 1983. So, he'd have been 18. I'm not clear on what his career was at that point in time, but Wiki says he didn't enlist in the army until 2004. That does seem like an odd claim, but nothing he's said so far has turned out to be incorrect.

Wikipedia says his birthday is June 21st, 1983. So, he'd have been 18. I'm not clear on what his career was at that point in time, but Wiki says he didn't enlist in the army until 2004. That does seem like an odd claim, but nothing he's said so far has turned out to be incorrect.

He might not have been there as an employee. Wikipedia says he lived 20 miles from Fort Meade with his family from 1999 on.

Wikipedia says his birthday is June 21st, 1983. So, he'd have been 18. I'm not clear on what his career was at that point in time, but Wiki says he didn't enlist in the army until 2004. That does seem like an odd claim, but nothing he's said so far has turned out to be incorrect.

He might not have been there as an employee. Wikipedia says he lived 20 miles from Fort Meade with his family from 1999 on.

Sounds like an elected official senator Ron Paul has more balls to say what he has to say openly about Snowden than what an appointed official who breathe under the nose of his employer the U.S. president. John Kerry just can't speak as freely as he wishful to as Ron Paul has. Here, we don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who exactly is the real coward. Would it be Edward Snowden or would it be John Kerry? It is a difficult choice for me. What's your pick?

Not so fast Senator Ron Paul. As a senator, you are part of the government.

Sounds like an elected official senator Ron Paul has more balls to say what he has to say openly about Snowden than what an appointed official who breathe under the nose of his employer the U.S. president. John Kerry just can't speak as freely as he wishful to as Ron Paul has. Here, we don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who exactly is the real coward. Would it be Edward Snowden or would it be John Kerry? It is a difficult choice for me. What's your pick?

Not so fast Senator Ron Paul. As a senator, you are part of the government.

Well, IMHO he hasn't really been one to always tow the Republican Party line. Admittedly not a lot of his policy and opinion carries much weight until he hits the nail on the head like he did here, although that's unlikely to lead to people voting for him end masse.

Obviously I cannot provide details, but score yourself a request for proposal for infrastructure (HW or SW) from a major telecom, and see how all the backdoors are built in to the specs.

Enlightening, and frightening.

IFF you are referring to the legal interception gateways, (LIG's) they are baked into the GSM standards. In most 'free' countries, they require warrants to be acted on before any data is collected. In Australia they are also a requirement for your carrier license, regardless of what platform you are running.

I would hope Mr Snowden does surrender and come back to the U.S. however I was hoping that Mr Snowden would release information about what evidence the U.S. government has been hiding about UFO's and what they know about them.

From the links provided the phone thing is pretty hyperbolic because yeah that's just not technically possible whatever the NSA might like.

The "phone" link really isn't proof. It's just a bunch of declarative statements, and suppositions.

Use your brain how about.

You can't remotely turn on anything in a powered off state unless its especially rigged to do so. Nothing is listening to any signal you send, it might as well be hacking a rock. You don't even need the whole phone, just the antenna really. Unless you wish to link the physics that would allow you to sling electrons around both at range and so precisely you can manipulate the hardware itself and what sort of range you can have.

Getting around that means the phone was never truly off in the first place and was deliberately made that way. I tend to think if that was actual industry standard we'd have heard about it constantly a long time ago, because duh easy hacker access. And it would be detectable as a radio signal.

It runs into the same issues every big evil sound conspiracy does, how many people have to have not noticed or been in on it for the claim to hold up. And "any phone" is a hideously high standard given their penetration everywhere. Think about those in-flight rules for just one example, while silly and outdated were companies just casually defying that for years, because that's what it would need to mean.

Unless you can back up that is how (most) phones operate, I'm not claiming to be a technical expert but I'd expect that sort of thing to be par the course knowledge for all those that are. I'm currently failing to find a bunch of techies chime in that yeah its totally possible.

I tend to think it more likely they NSA has a more limited capacity to rig your phone (sometime its actually on) with malware of some type that does that. Which is a vastly different matter and needs to be recognized how it works.

From the links provided the phone thing is pretty hyperbolic because yeah that's just not technically possible whatever the NSA might like.

The "phone" link really isn't proof. It's just a bunch of declarative statements, and suppositions.

Use your brain how about.

You can't remotely turn on anything in a powered off state unless its especially rigged to do so. Nothing is listening to any signal you send, it might as well be hacking a rock. You don't even need the whole phone, just the antenna really. Unless you wish to link the physics that would allow you to sling electrons around both at range and so precisely you can manipulate the hardware itself and what sort of range you can have.

Getting around that means the phone was never truly off in the first place and was deliberately made that way. I tend to think if that was actual industry standard we'd have heard about it constantly a long time ago, because duh easy hacker access. And it would be detectable as a radio signal.

It runs into the same issues every big evil sound conspiracy does, how many people have to have not noticed or been in on it for the claim to hold up. And "any phone" is a hideously high standard given their penetration everywhere. Think about those in-flight rules for just one example, while silly and outdated were companies just casually defying that for years, because that's what it would need to mean.

Unless you can back up that is how (most) phones operate, I'm not claiming to be a technical expert but I'd expect that sort of thing to be par the course knowledge for all those that are. I'm currently failing to find a bunch of techies chime in that yeah its totally possible.

I tend to think it more likely they NSA has a more limited capacity to rig your phone (sometime its actually on) with malware of some type that does that. Which is a vastly different matter and needs to be recognized how it works.

There's a fairly easy way to test whether manipulation is done or no: buy two identical phones, set them up, charge them up, then rip out the battery from one and turn off the other. If they leak power at roughly equivalent rates, we can probably assume no tampering is done, and the phone is truly off. If the phone battery drains more quickly, then *something* is clearly using that power, and I'd be interested to know what.

Maybe someone at Ars can run the test and give us the results, if for no other reason than to settle this inane speculation?

There's a fairly easy way to test whether manipulation is done or no: buy two identical phones, set them up, charge them up, then rip out the battery from one and turn off the other. If they leak power at roughly equivalent rates, we can probably assume no tampering is done, and the phone is truly off. If the phone battery drains more quickly, then *something* is clearly using that power, and I'd be interested to know what.

Maybe someone at Ars can run the test and give us the results, if for no other reason than to settle this inane speculation?

I'm curious to see how Edward Snowden will be portrayed in history books in 50 years.

At this point, I think it is likely that he will be portrayed in a positive light. Current public opinion, although divided, seems like it is starting to lean in Snowden's favor.

My bet is that the generations of the future won't feel outrage or feelings of betrayal since they will be alive decades after the fact and will have no horse in the game. They will be able to examine today's situation in a more neutral manner based on all the facts, which are hopefully public knowledge in 50 years.

I'm curious to see how Edward Snowden will be portrayed in history books in 50 years.

At this point, I think it is likely that he will be portrayed in a positive light. Current public opinion, although divided, seems like it is starting to lean in Snowden's favor.

My bet is that the generations of the future won't feel outrage or feelings of betrayal since they will be alive decades after the fact and will have no horse in the game. They will be able to examine today's situation in a more neutral manner based on all the facts, which are hopefully public knowledge in 50 years.

While admittedly it starts to get a little hazy I think back to now ten years ago and how things have shifted.

Heck much of what Snowden has done is back-up claims that were made then and got all of nowhere with the general public. Heck for that matter all considered ten years ago it would seem Snowden himself simply would not have done what he did ten years ago.

While this is strictly speaking prophecy and just a pet theory of mine, but I would think metaphorically what we are seeing is going to be the tech world exiting its wild teenage years. Rather then continual explosive change we will be seeing an increasing focus on just how much our world has changed and what the real standards need to be in light of this singularity type event changing everything.

While just my own personal experience it seems like people once they realize the level of infiltration are not comfortable with this and we are increasingly seeing the response to take it back. How far it will go... not sure, but that's the direction I see things swinging.

All of which if true would be good for Snowden in a historical perspective.

Well 50 years depends upon if we're looking back through a dystopian lens?

While possible America does have some tendency toward self-correction.

Its not anything you could call efficient and does need some pushing by interested parties... but the country is still chugging along and getting to be quite old. For having changed its basic governance fairly little while only really threatening to dissolve once.

Very little of anything happening today is without precedent historically, and in that light it suggests rather the veer of the edge we tend instead to swing like a pendulum with reactions as strong as any action. Though of course part of that is people pushing back so we should still be aware and say politically active to cause that aversion.